Do youi need a 570hp truck?

[daugen]

Supercharged Hemi V8 Hellcat Engine Information - Information Regarding the Possible Upcoming Hemi Supercharged Hellcat - Road & Track

maybe a Hellcat is in your future.
Neat name for a serious motor,
I was more interested in the article's comment about
this likely being the last of the big stuff before new CAFE requirements
will force us all into blown Vanguard twins...

wasn't there a world war two fighter with that name??

But before they go, one of these would be nice...though I bet it's got a serious
appetite at the pump.

Which has the most torque advantage/capability...supercharged or turbocharged?
Somehow I always thought supercharging was for peak hp not torque, but someone correct me please
if need be.

I used to own a boat with DD 8V71TI diesels that had both turbos and a main supercharger. Have been confused ever since...

 

[gemstarfarm]

At least you had your answer having both turbos and a supercharger hp and torque if thats correct!

Hellcat name sounds like a wicked beast.

 

[bcp]

wasn't there a world war two fighter with that name??

Yes, but it had a 2000 hp. engine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grumman_F6F_Hellcat

Bruce

 

[oldnslo]

Supercharger is belt driven so it gives better performance at lower RPM's while the Turbo charger is exhaust driven so it works best at higher RPM's.

I was always told that Superchargers took more power to operate but I don't recall which gave the best performance across the board. Turbo's are a lot less $$.


How long would that motor produce 570 HP before it died? My guess is not very long but I could be proven wrong.

 

[Diamondpilot]

Not practical but sure would be fun. Just like the super charged F150 Lightning I just had to have. It was fun for a year then I needed a real truck with 4x4.

Chris

 

[RedNeckRacin]

I was always under the impression that the supercharger was for low and mid torque where a turbo was more for topend ponies. The often quoted "supercharger uses horsepower" is hog wash IMO. How can it "use" horsepower yet make the engine produce more power than stock. Gimme a break. Just because you can actually see a belt being spun around doesn't mean its draining horsepower from the motor. Quite the opposite. IIRC a supercharger is a power adder right? The supercharger being belt driven means that it has IMMEDIATE response to the throttle. Turbo technology has come a long way since the days of yore and twin turbos now almost act like a supercharger.

I dont have any side by side comparision and its not exactly fair either but I had a super charged 6 cylinder car and a turbo charged 6 cylinder truck. For pure fun, the supercharger was hands down more playful! The instant you hit the skinny peddle, there was boost on that car. The truck always took a noticeable amount of time to spool up but when it "lit off" as long as the rpm's were kept up it was very peppy. The majority of drivers "race" stop light to stop light. Bench racers and forum racers quote peak numbers for the most part.




I think I just ranted to myself? But to answer the thread title. Who doesn't need 570hp+ for a truck? The question should be, who can afford a 570hp truck!?

 

[RobertN]

What was the HP on the previous Ram SRT10?

And will this version be available with a stick? If atuo, paddle shift?

 

[podagrower]

wasn't there a world war two fighter with that name??

Also a tank with that name (technically a tank destroyer), but it also had a radial aircraft engine for power, but not 2,000 horsepower.

 

[daugen]

I wonder if any Hellcat WWII airplanes flew against the Italians, who now own Dodge...
Or were they Pacific based? whatever, maybe Dodge/Chrysler has the authority to pick their model
names still.

Everyone is trying to reduce fuel consumption. In fifty years our grandchildren will go to a museum where a Hellcat airplane might be
next to a Dodge Ram Hellcat. In the Extinct Technology exhibit. Wouldn't that be a hoot. Until then, most of us would rather have a Hemi.

Just think, Dodge will then be making an Atkins cycle turbo two providing the juice for four
200hp micro motors, each computer controlled. 1200 ft.lb. torque, almost instantaneously.
Hellcat Veyrons for the masses.

No matter what type of propulsion will be used, there will always be those of us trying to
optimize or increase the power. Though if the standard model had 800hp, I probably couldn't complain.:dance1:

 

[94BULLITT]

It takes power to turn a supercharger just like it does a water pump or alternator since it is belt driven. A turbo is exhaust driven so it is pretty much free horsepower. Superchargers on races cars at max boost can take 300hp+ to turn them.

 

[daugen]

The question should be, who can afford a 570hp truck!?

Put a blower on a Ford V10 and I bet you could make some serious power too.
Problem is that overstressed machinery of any kind doesn't usually last. But what if that engine
is really race prepped, has all the latest exotic metals, and an advanced cooling and lube system?

That sounds like a fifty grand engine to make it last, and how long would that be? One thousand hours?
Ten thousand sounds better...
A durable AMG engine for all of us.

Which makes one wonder how well AMG engines hold up, though I bet those cars don't get a lot of miles put on them.
Unlikely to be too many three or four hundred thousand mile AMG cars on the road to see. Do they hold up as well as a
small block, either by Ford or Chevy? And if you could design your perfect engine to actually accomplish both power and durability, the cost would
be huge. And the fuel consumption laughable.

back to reality. After we have had our fun...
my guess is that Fuel consumption will drive this due to commercial use, government use, military use which are all demanding better mpg
Those electric motors seem to be the only option here, and we'll just assume battery tech to have been perfected.

Now if they could make it sound like a Mustang GT hitting 5000 rpm, perhaps I would be less worried about driving with electric motors.

 

[RedNeckRacin]

It takes power to turn a supercharger just like it does a water pump or alternator since it is belt driven. A turbo is
exhaust driven so it is pretty much free horsepower. Superchargers on races cars at max boost can take 300hp+ to turn them.

First of all I'm being argumentative before I piss anyone off. But to say that it "uses" horsepower is not holding water in my mind. A water pump, alternator, power steering pump uses power and is considered a parasitic loss. Hence the reason that there are so many under-drive kits available for use.


I don't know of anyone who designs a supercharger to use horsepower without making more power than it uses. Or am I wrong? So you're getting a net gain of power regardless of how you want to define things. And hence my reasoning of "not technically using" horsepower. I understand that the supercharger is belt driven and that it's not a frictionless system, but a turbo has to get the energy from somewhere as well. It doesn't create pressure from nothing nor is it "free power". I don't disagree that it is more efficient at higher rpm's because that's exactly what its designed to do. Create hp at peak rpms. A supercharger on the other hand, creates it nearly instantly from idle to midrange due to it being belt driven.


I guess I really don't have a point to prove, just seeing what kind of response I get. Dam engineering mindset.

 

[buickanddeere]

For brief full throttle sprints, who cares if the blower uses a few HP. The instant throttle response more than makes up for the blower load.
A super charged engine will scavage the cylinders better than a turbo engine.
In a constant speed, constant load application. A properly sized turbo is the most efficient means of positive manifold pressure.
A modern Whipple twisted rotor screw type blower uses about as much power as an electric seat warmer at cruise when the bypass is open.
A two stroke diesel with just the roots blower is considered to be natural aspirated according to the DD service manual.
The turbo two stroke won't start and run without a roots blower. Once the turbos spool up. Some of the two strokes used an undersized blower and a bypass door to reduce parasite load.

 

[RedNeckRacin]

For brief full throttle sprints, who cares if the blower uses a few HP. The instant throttle response more than makes up for the blower load.
A super charged engine will scavage the cylinders better than a turbo engine.
In a constant speed, constant load application. A properly sized turbo is the most efficient means of positive manifold pressure. .....
QUOTE]

maybe this better describes what I'm dancing around. The "loss" of power is so slight for what you get in return when the majority of "racers" dont use everything the motor has on any sort of routine basis. It really comes down to bar stool racing for the most part. :stirthepot:

 

[Diamondpilot]

I have owned both supercharged and turbo vehicles. Trucks, cars, and airplanes. Atleast one of each. Never had either give me any issues.

The supercharged engine gives instant power. While fun its not practical in a truck. The turbo does a good job at rolling into the power and "normalizing" the engine for extreme heat and density altitude.

If given the choice I would take turbocharging any day of the week. The new twin turbo setups like on my BMW and some Power Strokes make a turbo almost as instantaneous as a supercharger.

Chris

 

[RedNeckRacin]

How is a supercharger not practical in a gasser truck? A truck is much heavier than a car and in a gas version motor, a supercharger would give you the grunt to get rolling and up to speed, or to merge onto the highway or race stop light to stop light. Very seldom do you get to race to 100mph or even for a 1/4 mile.


Wasn't the lightning a supercharged 5.4L? And it directly competed with chevy's big block. Gotta be something to that. Turbo technology has come ALONG ways in the past decade thats for sure. But a single turbo vs a supercharger is what I was driving at. Obviously if you have two correctly sized turbo's you can minimize their drawbacks.

 

[sld]

Superchargers do consume power, but it has a beneficial NET gain.

Positive displacement sc's put huge strains on a truck's drive line when loaded down. Instant torque off idle makes for serious twisting power.

Centrifigals build boost with engine speed but that is not suited to a working truck either.

 

[the old grind]

RNR, B&D, DP, guys like you could ruin the fun for the rest of us if you keep shovin' fundamentals down our intakes.

Even without supercharging, diesels can gain power from injecting excess fuel that, once all oxygen is consumed, vaporizes without burning and boosts cylinder pressure. You see it in the copious amounts of black smoke gushing from exhaust pipes at the truck/tractor pulls or from your neighbors truck that's been 'chipped-up' for more git-go. A minor consequence, of course, is exceeding design specs of the engine at the expense of durability.

I wonder why more folks don't go either route to get more HP since it gives one an excuse to replace rods & bearings more often rather than trying to wear out an engine the old-fashioned way ... thru' thousands of miles/hours of normal use.

Admittedly this is somewhat out of context among tractor guys who'd rely on 'tractive effort' vs just raw HP/torque. I know, "Tractors are slow" & who cares about fuel economy anymore? (You DO want to be the first one there, no?) Talk is cheap, but what are YOU drivin'? :stirthepot:

 

[daugen]

Talk is cheap, but what are YOU drivin'?

The Hennessy version...

 

[94BULLITT]

Not all superchargers make low end power. Centrifical superchargers are basically a belt driven turbo.